Maggie's Farm

how's that recount going?

RE How tort reform helped ignite the Texas boom.



this is the "paid" vs "billed" question. plaintiffs aren't awarded damages based on medical bills that have been adjusted downward or written off. this happens because medical providers reduce their rates to be in-plan providers for medical insurance plans. the med people inflate the bills to the patients and negotiate with the insurance companies. the bills are never intended to be paid in full. this makes sense as tort reform, but the problem is not the lawyers, but the medical insurance racket.

also note, up until the last few years, a settlement (over 90% of cases are never tried) worked on the formula billed and estimated future medical expense x3 would be a benchmark for negotiations, with the x3 also accounting for general damages (pain and suffering) and attorney fees. (settlement amounts are lower these days).



this might be discussed in a specific way, and partial cost shifting already exists in a lot of states to rein in extravagant claims, but as a general matter, its a bad idea. for the poor, this rule won't affect a plaintiff-litigant because he or she is judgment proof against a defense cost award. it affects middle class plaintiffs with something to lose and who don't want to declare bankruptcy.

if an injured citizen is against Shell or Exxon or, or, or, he's facing unlimited legal resources. its the plaintiff's lawyer to fronts all of the costs up front: litigation costs including deposition expenses and expert witnesses, whose hourly fees can range into hundreds of dollars an hour, and in a products liability cases involving design or manufacture defects, or a medical malpractice case involving the cause of injury, this amount is enormous. while there are plaintiffs' lawyers who can and do shoulder this risk, the risk of costs if the case is lost shifts to the client, not the lawyer, which is intended to make deter risk-adverse clients mostly during settlement negotiations where the vast majority of these cases are settled and here, its all about the economics of risk.

"tort reform" isn't about justice, its about shifting risk burdens to achieve some social goal. if you're in Victorian England, and want to encourage the development of railways, then you enact legislation that shields railway companies from liability for fires started by engine sparks. if you're in 21st century Texas and you want to encourage a business climate, then you enact "tort reforms" to discourage plaintiffs. these things are what they are, there's no moral dimension of "reform", its just business.

RE Obama begins new career…as a climate scientist

what's the big woop here? anyone can be a "climate scientist", my dogs went to retriever school and they're climate scientists. my cat's a climate scientist. why not little barry? he's at least as qualified as any "climate scientist" around.

Ver. I pronounce you Climate Scientist

Resp. nous sommes tous Climate Scientists

All: the Science is Settled (tm)(r)(c)(pat.pend.)

you understand as much of the issue as zachriels does about the weather, meaning, less than nothing.